MHB Order Pairs of Relation R on S: Multiply for Even Result

  • Thread starter Thread starter sMilips
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Relation
sMilips
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Q: Let S = {1,2,5,6 } Define a relation R on S of at least four order pairs, as (a,b)  R iff a*b is

Q: Let S = {1,2,5,6 }
Define a relation R on S of at least four order pairs, as (a,b)  R iff a*b is even (i.e. a multiply by b is even)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Re: Q: Let S = {1,2,5,6 } Define a relation R on S of at least four order pairs, as (a,b)  R iff a*

Hi sMilips.

You want $(a,b)$ such that $ab$ is even. So $(2,1)$ is possible since $2\cdot1=2$ is even. But you don’t want $(1,5)$ because $1\cdot5=5$ is odd. Thus $(1,5)\notin R$ but $(2,1)$ can be in $R$ (it doesn’t have to but you can include it if you want). In general, if $ab$ is even, what can you say about one (possibly both) of $a$ and $b$?
 
Re: Q: Let S = {1,2,5,6 } Define a relation R on S of at least four order pairs, as (a,b)  R iff a*

Plz type clear. Did not understand your answer.
 
Re: Q: Let S = {1,2,5,6 } Define a relation R on S of at least four order pairs, as (a,b)  R iff a*

sMilips said:
Plz type clear. Did not understand your answer.
Please write the exact part in Olinguito's answer that you did not understand and why. Also, the answer in post 2 uses so-called LaTeX to show mathematical formulas. If they look garbled somehow on your device but the rest of the text looks OK, please say so. If there are other problems with displaying the thread, please describe it.
 
Hi all, I've been a roulette player for more than 10 years (although I took time off here and there) and it's only now that I'm trying to understand the physics of the game. Basically my strategy in roulette is to divide the wheel roughly into two halves (let's call them A and B). My theory is that in roulette there will invariably be variance. In other words, if A comes up 5 times in a row, B will be due to come up soon. However I have been proven wrong many times, and I have seen some...
Thread 'Detail of Diagonalization Lemma'
The following is more or less taken from page 6 of C. Smorynski's "Self-Reference and Modal Logic". (Springer, 1985) (I couldn't get raised brackets to indicate codification (Gödel numbering), so I use a box. The overline is assigning a name. The detail I would like clarification on is in the second step in the last line, where we have an m-overlined, and we substitute the expression for m. Are we saying that the name of a coded term is the same as the coded term? Thanks in advance.
Back
Top